May 24, 2019

May 24, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

May 23, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

May 22, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

May 21, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Infrastructure Permitting Tug of War Between Trump Administration and Citizen Groups

Streamlining environmental reviews and permitting for infrastructure projects is a major objective of President Trump. And one of the biggest permitting roadblocks that can come up in renewable energy, transmission line, resource recovery, and any other infrastructure projects is potential impacts to wildlife.

While the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits the “take” of threatened or endangered species, it allows the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) to permit the “incidental take”—or unintentional take—of a certain number of listed species as long as the take is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. To further address this, the Trump Administration’s Department of Interior recently released guidance to ensure that regional offices consistently address incidental take permits (ITPs) and specifically let companies decide whether to seek such a permit. The guidance reads “service staff can and should advise non-federal parties on the law, our regulations and guidance . . . but it is not appropriate to use mandatory language (e.g. a permit is “required”) in the course of that communication.” By leaving the decision up to project proponents, it allows developers to weigh the risks and use their own judgment about whether to seek a permit.

The administration’s goals are to reduce regulatory burden and speed up the permitting process. However, citizen groups continue to challenge environmental approvals and permits as a tactic to delay or even stop projects. Here is a snapshot of the resulting permit tug of war playing out in the executive and judicial branches:

Executive branch: Last month, the FWS issued guidance prohibiting employees from telling developers they must obtain ESA ITPs. Obtaining an ITP is generally within the developer’s discretion (unless federal funding is at stake). The guidance also clarifies the limited circumstances under which habitat modification constitutes a “take” under the Act. In order to constitute a take, all of the following three questions must be answered affirmatively:

  • Is the modification of habitat significant?

  • Does that modification also significantly impair an essential behavior pattern of a listed species?

  • Is the significant modification of the habitat likely to result in the actual killing or injury of wildlife?

The guidance specifies that an ITP is only needed when an activity is likely to result in the “take” of listed wildlife and the applicant is not otherwise compelled to apply for an ITP.

Judicial branch: Earlier this month, a Fourth Circuit appellate court vacated an ITP issued by the FWS to the Atlantic Coast Pipeline’s developers. The ITP allowed development of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline project to take certain threatened or endangered species. According to the court, the ITP failed to set clear limits on the take of a listed species and, thus, undermined the ESA’s enforcement and monitoring function. Therefore, as this administration seeks to streamline environmental reviews, environmental groups appeal to courts in their continued efforts to use the ESA as a tool to delay or even stop fossil fuel development projects.

The recently-issued guidance narrows the circumstances that may trigger the need for FWS to issue an ITP under the ESA. But the streamlining may nonetheless be stymied. Less than three weeks later, environmental groups successfully used the appeal of an ITP, a case begun before the guidance was issued, as a roadblock to delay the progress of a major infrastructure project.

© 2019 Schiff Hardin LLP

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Amy Antoniolli, environmental attorney, Schiff Hardin, permit appeals legal counsel, environment regulations lawyer, Illinois Pollution Control law
Staff Attorney

Amy Antoniolli concentrates her practice on environmental matters, advising clients on compliance with relevant laws and regulations and representing them in permit appeals, requests for relief from regulations and in rulemakings.

Amy’s prior experience as Assistant Attorney for the Illinois Pollution Control Board and as Assistant Counsel to the Illinois House of Representatives informs her work at Schiff Hardin and regularly benefits her clients.

Having advised the Board Members of the Illinois Pollution Control Board...

312-258-5550
Jane E Montgomery, Schiff Hardin Law firm
Partner

Jane E. Montgomery concentrates her practice in a variety of matters at the local, state and federal levels. Ms. Montgomery regularly: Counsels many companies with day-to-day compliance issues, including air permitting, NSPS, MACT, and solid and hazardous waste issues. In her work, she often encounters difficult elemental mercury, manufactured gas plant, and PCB issues, and she recently has focused on Reform New Source Review (NSR) compliance for utilities. Counsels clients with respect to climate change issues. Such work has included work on carbon sequestration issues, greenhouse gas inventory issues, and offset projects. Advises clients concerning audit programs and other environmental management mechanisms. Represents clients in a variety of civil and criminal enforcement actions, including responses to notices of violation or lawsuits, and in pre-enforcement efforts, such as agency requests for information. Represents clients in other Superfund actions, generally at the cost recovery or allocation phases. Counsels clients on "brownfield" redevelopment issues. Successfully represents clients in water matters, including modification of Army Corps of Engineers permits. Experience as common counsel in Superfund matters has figured prominently in her practice. Ms. Montgomery has represented groups of parties alleged to be responsible for environmental remediation in different situations. For example: In Toledo, Ohio, Ms. Montgomery represented an individual client and, later, a group of parties at the Stickney and Tyler landfill sites. Ms. Montgomery represented the common interests of multiple parties in dealing with federal and state regulators and pressed those interests to successful resolution of complex issues. In another joint defense representation, Ms. Montgomery was part of a team defending a similarly situated industry group in a cost recovery action filed in federal court. The matter involved resolution of difficult factual allocation issues. Ms. Montgomery was selected judge for DaimlerChrysler's Environmental Leadership Award Competition in 2002.

312-258-5508